Peter Williams wrote:
1 star for content to markup ratio
1 star for validation of markup and css
These two should be able to be automated, just like the w3c validator.
1 star for accessibility
1 star for semantic markup
1 star for ????????? suggestions from the audience required.
These three are probably hard/impossible to assess programatically.
5 stars is the best.
And who would award the stars? Or are you thinking of a self-assessment
scheme like the W3C? Hmm...let me think of the plethora of sites I've
seen that claim WCAG AAA and are nowhere near even A (e.g. having
alt="image" on each image, thus passing automatic validation)...
Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites
take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves
(easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet another
badge...imho of course.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
